Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Squaring circles: direct biblical contradictions
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 45 of 161 (532154)
10-21-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 2:06 PM


Re: Doctrine of Inerrancy
quote:
The ones I've shown are real, and you haven't yet answered my query about Jesus and the sabbath contradiction.
Sure I did, Message 27. I didn't respond to your last comment in Message 37 because it has nothing to do with what was written. Essentially you just don't like the methods used.
So, if all Jesus wanted to do was to knock over the fence, why didn't he say "I think it's OK to knock over this fence, but the earlier commandment still stands for any other prohibited activities which anyone might be planning"? Instead of making a specific sabbath exception, he made a general one.
That has nothing to do with whether the verses contradict each other or not.
To prove Jesus did away with the Sabbath, show evidence that his followers didn't keep the weekly Sabbath under normal circumstances. It would help your understanding if you would read the entire section and not just the verse. The argument is made within the verse.
quote:
Here's another:
More hoops to jump through.
quote:
God destroys all the cattle (including horses) belonging to the Egyptians:...
The Egyptians pursue Moses on horseback:
Well we have a cut and paste story and the verses come from different authors. So by the Doctrine of Inerrancy, the originals were probably fine. Only when Ezra started meshing these stories together do we get a problem. I agree, Ezra didn't keep the story consistent. He missed details. Now if one wanted to get really picky, the first verse says all the livestock in the fields. That leaves the possibility that Pharoh's horses were in the barn or stalls, etc. That detail isn't in the story though. (I'm being humorous in case you don't understand that.)
So why does Ezra's poor editing make the Bible not the word of God? Remember, we don't know what the original story said.
What great theological teaching will this inaccurately told legend cast doubt on?
quote:
1 Chronicles 21:22-25 (King James Version)...
2 Samuel 24:24 (King James Version)
I assume your issue is with the difference in the sale price. 600 shekels of gold vs 50 shekels of silver.
I agree the prices don't match. Does the world end now?
The book of Samuel was written before Chronicles. Odds are the price changed each time the story was told. I don't know that the writers of that time were as precise about their details as writers are required to be today.
So we have two different authors and two different prices. Why does the price difference mean the Bible isn't the word of God?
What great theological teaching will this ancient inaccuracy cast doubt on?
Since we don't have the original manuscripts on either of these, we don't know if the mistakes were in the originals.
Remember the inerrancy doctrine has only been around a few hundred years.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 2:06 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 5:30 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 46 of 161 (532158)
10-21-2009 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 2:09 PM


Re: Weak arguments
Rule #4: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
quote:
Curiouser and curiouser. Can you appreciate quite how ludicrous your explanations appear?
This type of response doesn't move the discussion forward and doesn't address what difficulties you have with the explanation.
As I asked before, please show evidence that songs always depict every detail of an event correctly.
So the song doesn't match the event. Why does that difference make the Bible not the word of God?
What great theological teaching will this ancient song cast doubt on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 2:09 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 5:39 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 49 of 161 (532169)
10-21-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 5:39 PM


Re: Weak arguments
quote:
PurpleDawn writes:
So the song doesn't match the event.
But your explanation of why it doesn't is extremely tortuous.
How is it tortuous?
PurpleDawn writes:
The author is writing about an event that happened and a song that was sung concerning the event. You feel it is better for the author to change the song instead of accurately recording it for posterity? If he had done that, then the writing would have actually been inaccurate and not free from error (inerrant). We wouldn't know the difference and you would be happy, but the information would actually be wrong.Message 40
You're the one who said: The "inerrant word of god" ought to be inerrant, at least, poetic license or not.
If the writer reports the event and the song as they were in his time, it is not an error.
So what is the point of pointing out that the song doesn't match the event? There has to be a reason. Otherwise you're just making people jump through hoops with no intention of addressing the responses seriously.
quote:
If you genuinely don't care whether the bible is inerrant, or not, why are you tying yourself in logical knots trying to prove that this one is OK?
If you're an atheist why do you care if the Bible has errors?
Why do you care if someone else thinks it doesn't have errors?
Why do you care if others consider it the word of God?
See those types of questions don't further the discussion. That's arguing the person, not the position. Address the arguments presented.
Show me the logical knots.
quote:
I neither know nor care whether Jesus' followers subsequently observed the sabbath. The point is that he made a general remark about it, rather than one specific to the circumstances.
The issue isn't whether you care. Address the argument presented. I gave you information that shows there was more to "keeping" the Sabbath in Jesus' day than when the rule was first made. Jesus' followers still kept the Sabbath. Reread the issues I presented and address those. If you're not going to address the argument presented, I can't help you understand why the Sabbath issue isn't really a contradiction.
Edited by purpledawn, : Formatting

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 5:39 PM Blzebub has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 50 of 161 (532173)
10-21-2009 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Blzebub
10-21-2009 5:30 PM


Re: Doctrine of Inerrancy
quote:
In that case, how can anyone debate what is says in the versions we have? It's the ultimate global biblical get-out clause,
Do I have to say, Duh?
quote:
We are only debating biblical contradictions.
The rest of us are trying to debate, you're not.
There has to be a reason for the debate. What are you hoping to prove with the contradictions?
Message 5 is the closest thing to a contention I could get out of you.
Huh? My point is that the bible directly contradicts itself, and does so innumerable times. It does so in many different ways. Conflicting advice is given. Even simple stuff such as the Jael murder story has two different scenarios.
Even one such instance is not consistent with the christian concept of a "perfect" god.
So, either the bible isn't actually the word of god, as is rather likely, or this god speaks with a forked tongue.
How does the error by the song writer make God not perfect?
How does the error in prices make God not perfect?
How does Ezra's bad editing make God not perfect?
How does Jesus showing that it is lawful to do good and to save life even on the Sabbath make God not perfect?
None of these are God speaking.
How are these instances not consistent with the Christian concept of a perfect God?
You're the one saying that one mistake in the Bible means God is not a perfect god. Says who?
What are the characteristic of a perfect God? (Don't forget to show evidence.)

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Blzebub, posted 10-21-2009 5:30 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 3:16 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 52 of 161 (532224)
10-22-2009 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Blzebub
10-22-2009 3:16 AM


Errors
quote:
In this subforum, the premise of debate is whether or not the bible is the "inerrant" word of god (or is it the words of man), and not about whether or not god is perfect. Inerrant means without error. Just one error or contradiction means that the bible cannot be the inerrant word of god.
Wow, you really don't have anything do you?
OK we'll play that game.
An error is an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy.
A contradiction or inconsistency is not an error, so those are irrelevant to the discussion since inerrant means without error.
Show me that the song writer deviated unintentionally. If the song writer knowingly chose to write the position of the dead man differently to accommodate the song, then it isn't an error.
Show me that the prices listed were errors. If the authors wrote down the story that was circulating at their time, they aren't errors.
Show me that Ezra's bad editing was unintentional. If he left the horses in on purpose, it isn't an error.
ABE: Since we don't have original manuscripts, we can't really say whether the Bible writers made errors or not.
If scribes made copying errors later, does that negate the Bible from containing the word of God? If yes, why?
If translators made errors later, does that negate the Bible from containing the word of God? If yes, why?
If you make an error in comprehension or interpretation, does that negate the Bible from containing the word of God? If yes, why?
You do realize the Bible was physically written, compiled, copied, and translated by men, right?
There were several interesting King James Bibles published in the seventeenth century. These errors changed the meaning of what was written and would negate it being the word of God, but only where the error happened.
Murderer's Bible:
Jude 16 - Murderers instead of murmurers.
These are murmurers complainers walking after their own lusts and their mouth speaketh great swelling words having men's persons in admiration because of advantage...
Mark 7:27 was made to read: Let the children first be killed (instead of filled) - But Jesus said unto her Let the children first be filled for it is not meet to take the children's bread and to cast it unto the dogs...
Wife Hater's Bible:
Luke 14:26 - Wife should read life.
If any man come to me, and hate not his father . . . yea, and his own wife also.
Second Printing King James Bible:
Matthew 26:36 - Read Then cometh Judas with them unto a place called Gethsemane. It should have read: Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane and saith unto the disciples Sit ye here while __ I go and pray yonder...
The Adulterer’s or Wicked Bible (1631):
Exodus 20:14 - Thou shalt commit adultery. Oops, forgot the not.
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Understanding the reality that gave us the Bible, helps one understand the development of that religion and influence on mankind. That doesn't mean one has to agree with the message.
So far I don't see anything that makes a difference in the overall scheme of the Bible map.
You can crow that a single "error" means it isn't the word of God, but you didn't need this thread for that. There are Bible contradiction and error sites all over the web and apologetics to answer each one.
Just as there are Christians who can cherry pick verses out of context to create a new theology, those who are religion-free can also cherry pick verses out of context to create a contradiction that isn't there.
I dislike Christians misusing the Bible and I dislike the religion-free misusing the Bible.
Edited by purpledawn, : ABE

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 3:16 AM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 12:41 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 72 by hooah212002, posted 10-22-2009 6:46 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 53 of 161 (532244)
10-22-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Blzebub
10-22-2009 3:16 AM


Reason For The Topic
What is your position concerning the topic you started?
What do you hope to prove from discussing "Bible Contradictions"?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 3:16 AM Blzebub has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-22-2009 9:49 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 56 of 161 (532257)
10-22-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
10-22-2009 9:49 AM


Inerrancy or INfallible
quote:
I don't like to second guess Blzebub's position, but I would have thought it was obvious that he was trying to establish that the Bible is not the literal word of a single being (God) but that it is clearly a compilation of articles written by various people with different mindsets or agendas. Or even if it did once contain a perfectly consistent message, it has been miscopied or mistranslated so many times that nobody can be sure what the original message was meant to be.
I would buy that if all the verses he presented were problems because of various authors, but they weren't. When I brought up the Documentary Hypothesis in Message 11 he didn't jump on it. I opened the door to addressing the issue of different authors. When someone asks for evidence that the A&E story is a myth, they aren't looking at the various authors.
Do you feel the responses given to the verses he provided were contrived?
quote:
Whatever the reason for the contradictions and discrepancies, the result is the Bible does not convey a wholly clear and consistent message, and that means it does not deserve the position of infallible authority that it is granted by so many.
Infallible isn't the same as inerrant.
Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-22-2009 9:49 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-22-2009 11:12 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 61 of 161 (532292)
10-22-2009 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Blzebub
10-22-2009 12:41 PM


Re: Errors
quote:
Good grief! Just read my first post again. It begins with a post snipped from a different thread, from a christian poster. In it, he suggests quite strongly that the bible is all true, and cannot be disputed:
He was referring to his own rationale for justifying his own beliefs. He sees no reason to argue with it.
iano writes:
The rationale for justifying any of my beliefs stems from an overarching belief that the Bible is the word of God. Once I've accepted that, there isn't much need to justify any specific belief arising from that overarching acceptance: God says it's so - who am I to argue with God?
quote:
I point out that there are inconsistencies in the bible, such that it would be impossible (and occasionally dangerous) to agree with everything in the bible. I haven't actually got around to posting dangerous advice from the bible, because you've done your best to derail the thread by continually changing the subject, and making silly excuses for the inconsistencies. Jumped Up Chimpanzee can see this, and I'm sure any other fair-minded person could as well.
That doesn't make it so for everyone.
I understand that his comment sparked the topic, but you still need a position since you scoffed at all the responses without actually dealing with what was said. You've given no support for your responses to the answers.
So which one of the verses did God contradict himself?
The song issue isn't God talking.
The money problem isn't God talking.
The horse issue isn't God talking.
None of these deals with any theological teaching. They are nonissues.
Jesus didn't counter the Sabbath and he's not God. (Yes, some believe he is; but not all.)
You haven't shown that he actually didn't keep the Sabbath than to do good.
quote:
I point out that there are inconsistencies in the bible, such that it would be impossible (and occasionally dangerous) to agree with everything in the bible. I haven't actually got around to posting dangerous advice from the bible, because you've done your best to derail the thread by continually changing the subject, and making silly excuses for the inconsistencies.
I guess you should have lead with your ace. You haven't shown evidence to counter the responses.
quote:
Exactly! What the price discrepancy shows is that the bible is not "the inerrant word of god". It demonstrates that "the authors" (men, not god) "wrote down the story that was circulating at their time" (circulating among other men). That's not the word of god, and it's not inerrant.
Which is what I said in Message 45.
PurpleDawn writes:
The book of Samuel was written before Chronicles. Odds are the price changed each time the story was told. I don't know that the writers of that time were as precise about their details as writers are required to be today.
So we have two different authors and two different prices. Why does the price difference mean the Bible isn't the word of God?
What great theological teaching will this ancient inaccuracy cast doubt on?
But you didn't answer the questions. So the Bible we have today isn't without "error" and it was written by men (Not really a news flash).
I still have the same question as I did in Message 7, Message 11, Message 13.
Who says the Bible cannot contain inconsistencies/contradictions/errors and be considered or contain the "word of God" besides you?
Show evidence that it cannot be called the word of God if it contains "errors".

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 12:41 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 2:16 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 62 of 161 (532293)
10-22-2009 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
10-22-2009 11:12 AM


Re: Inerrancy or INfallible
Unfortunately you didn't address the verses or further the discussion.
Your post is off topic, so I can't address it either.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-22-2009 11:12 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 2:18 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 81 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 10-23-2009 4:19 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 65 of 161 (532297)
10-22-2009 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Blzebub
10-22-2009 2:04 PM


Re: Supposed Inconsistencies
What were the rules in that day?
Since his daughters didn't leave the house, why does this negate his righteous standing?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 2:04 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 2:28 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 67 of 161 (532308)
10-22-2009 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Blzebub
10-22-2009 2:28 PM


Re: Supposed Inconsistencies
quote:
Was it considered "righteous" to offer your virgin daughters to a mob of strangers, in that day, in your increasingly peculiar view?
That's what I asked you.
Stop wasting posts that don't further the discussion.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 2:28 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Blzebub, posted 10-22-2009 4:34 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 74 of 161 (532338)
10-22-2009 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by hooah212002
10-22-2009 6:46 PM


Re: Errors
quote:
So, then, in your opinion, the only people who could possibly know "the truth" are those who read directly from the original manuscripts? i.e. The Dead Sea Scrolls? Since you say every version since contains errors?
Nope. Blzebub didn't wish to answer my questions in Message 50. He chose instead to define the word inerrant.
An error is unintentional. We have no way of knowing, concerning some of the verses we've addressed, if the difference was unintentional or not. If it was intentional, then it isn't an error.
None of this has anything to do with the answers I provided concerning the verses. The Doctrine of Inerrancy is only a few centuries old and of no real value.
God's words were considered to be in several Holy Writings way before the Doctrine of Inerrancy surfaced.
Psalms 56:4, which is a song.
I praise the word of God.
1 Kings 12:22
But this word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God:
I feel the doctrine deemed the Bible inerrant because it is considered the word of God. The Bible isn't deemed the word of God because it is inerrant. IOW, lack of errors didn't make it the word of God.
The Bibles contain the words attributed to the Jewish and Christian God. No amount of errors or contradictions are going to change that. Whether or not those words were actually spoken by a supreme being, neither side can really prove. Some of the writings are foundational myths/legends that became part of the culture. They are part of what shaped the Jewish Religion and eventually the Christian Religion. Some are historical and poetic.
Yes, people can be dangerously literal, but that isn't the fault of the book or the authors.
Do you feel the answers given for the verses he provided were contrived?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by hooah212002, posted 10-22-2009 6:46 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by hooah212002, posted 10-22-2009 8:36 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 79 by Blzebub, posted 10-23-2009 3:20 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 80 by Blzebub, posted 10-23-2009 3:39 AM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 76 of 161 (532340)
10-22-2009 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by hooah212002
10-22-2009 8:36 PM


Re: Errors
quote:
I was asking YOU a question. Not a question posed to you regarding Blzebub.
Care to answer it?
{ABE} The reason for my question is based on your continued assertion that it is the scribes who translated the original whom created any errors.
I did answer. I said "Nope".
Where did I assert that the scribes who translated the original created any errors?
Have you read the thread?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by hooah212002, posted 10-22-2009 8:36 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by hooah212002, posted 10-22-2009 9:02 PM purpledawn has replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 82 of 161 (532393)
10-23-2009 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by hooah212002
10-22-2009 9:02 PM


Re: Errors
In Message 39, Message 45, and Message 52; I did not assert that the scribes who translated the original created any errors as we can see from the quotes you provided.
quote:
you apparently don't give our current copies of any bible the benefit of doubt for being "exact copies". Which is why I asked if you feel the only people who "know the real truth" are those in posession of the originals.
What "real truth" are you talking about?
If by truth you mean knowing whether there are unintentional errors in our translations, then I would say that those who can read the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts that Bibles are translated from would be the people who could actually tell if our current Bibles have unintentional errors. I can't tell.
If you're talking about unintentional errors in copies of the original, then I would say no one really knows that answer. The originals are gone.
Did the church fathers edit the New Testament?
quote:
If the current copies aren't legit, why follow them AT ALL? What good are they?
That's a choice that each individual makes for themselves and is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Edited by purpledawn, : Typo

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by hooah212002, posted 10-22-2009 9:02 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 83 of 161 (532398)
10-23-2009 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Blzebub
10-23-2009 3:39 AM


Re: Errors
quote:
If god is perfect, and the bible is god's word, then the bible must be inerrant (without error). If the bible is god's word, yet contains errors, then god is not perfect.
The Bible isn't deemed the word of God because it's inerrant. So if God is not perfect, and the Bible is God's word, then the Bible can have errors.
Is that what you're trying to prove to yourself, that God isn't flawless? If you're arguing against what you called the Christian concept of a perfect God, you're going about it the wrong way.
Before you can claim that an error in the Bible means God is not flawless, you need to connect God to the production of the Bible.
Like I asked in Message 50:
How does the error by the song writer make God not perfect?
How does the error in prices make God not perfect?
How does Ezra's bad editing make God not perfect?
How does Jesus showing that it is lawful to do good and to save life even on the Sabbath make God not perfect?
Until you can clarify (with evidence) the characteristics of a flawless god, you really can't connect errors within a written work of man to God's flawlessness.
BTW, the Bible writings don't support the idea of a flawless god. That's just looking at the simple reading of the text.
quote:
You still haven't answered my implicit question in Message 69. Do you really, seriously, believe that in Lot's time (or any other time), a righteous man would offer his two daughters to a mob for the explicit purpose of gang-rape? If this is your belief, please provide evidence to support it.
What we think of it today is irrelevant. In the story, Lot was not chastised for offering his daughters to the mob. The angels of God were right there with him.
We're looking at whether the Bible supposedly contradicts itself, not whether the Bible contradicts what we believe to be right and wrong today.
Edited by purpledawn, : No reason given.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Blzebub, posted 10-23-2009 3:39 AM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Blzebub, posted 10-23-2009 12:02 PM purpledawn has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024